<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1968 (8) TMI 186 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160260</link>
    <description>The Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1961 was criticised for levying building tax solely on floor area, without regard to differentiating factors such as the building&#039;s nature, use, location, construction cost, rental potential or other relevant circumstances. In fiscal legislation, broad legislative classification is permissible, but the tax base must still rest on a rational basis and comply with the equality guarantee. A uniform charge applied indiscriminately to materially dissimilar buildings may therefore amount to denial of equal protection. On that reasoning, the charging provision was held to violate the equality clause and could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (8) TMI 186 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160260</link>
      <description>The Kerala Buildings Tax Act, 1961 was criticised for levying building tax solely on floor area, without regard to differentiating factors such as the building&#039;s nature, use, location, construction cost, rental potential or other relevant circumstances. In fiscal legislation, broad legislative classification is permissible, but the tax base must still rest on a rational basis and comply with the equality guarantee. A uniform charge applied indiscriminately to materially dissimilar buildings may therefore amount to denial of equal protection. On that reasoning, the charging provision was held to violate the equality clause and could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>